Skip to main content
. 2021 May 9;22(9):5019. doi: 10.3390/ijms22095019

Table 2.

New strategies in 2WT mCRC patients after anti-EGFR progression.

Author Design(n) Treatment arms LLB at Entry * Biomarker Driven **/Targeted Therapy BiBiomarker Driven **/Targeted Therapyomarker Selection BOR% PFS (m) mOS (m) ESMO-MCBS: ESMO-Magnitude Clinical Benefit Scale
Montagut et al. [94] II-R (254) Sym004-12 mg/kg vs. Sym004-9 mg/kg vs. Investigator choice No No 14.1
9.6
2.9
-
-
-
11.9
8.9
8.4
1
Cremolini et al. [96] II (28) Irinotecan-Cetuximab No No 14 4.1 ** - NA
Rimassa et al. [97] II (41) Tivantinib-Cetuximab No No 9.8 2.6 - NA
Delord et al. [98] I-II (13) Capmatinib-Cetuximab No No 0 - - NA
Sartore-Bianchi et al. [99] II (27) Trastuzumab-Lapatinib No Yes/HER2 (+++) 26 5.1 - NA
Nakamura et al. [100] II (18) Trastuzumab-Pertuzumab Yes Yes/HER2 (amplification) 35 4 - NA
Gupta et al. [101] II (28) Trastuzumab-Pertuzumab No Yes/HER2 (+++) 25 4.2 - NA
Sartore-Bianchi et al. [102] II (31) TDM1-Pertuzumab No Yes/HER2 (+++) 9.7 4.1 - NA
Siena et al. [103] II (53) Trastuzumab-Deruxtecan No Yes/HER2 (+++) 43.4 6.9 - NA
CHRONOS * II (129) Panitumumab Yes No - - - -
BEYOND * II-R (85) FOLFIRI-Panitumumab vs FOLFIRI Yes No - - - -
VELO * II-R (112) TAS-102-Panitumumab vs TAS-102 No No - - - -
PULSE * II-R (106) Panitumumab vs Regorafenib or TAS-102 Yes No - - - -
FIRE-4 * III (230) Irinotecan-Cetuximab vs Regorafenib or Investigator choice No No - - - -
PERSPECTIVE * II (48) Tepotinib-Cetuximab Yes Yes/MET (amplification) - - - -

2WT, double wild-type for RAS and BRAF mutations; N, number; LB, liquid biopsy; BOR, best overall response; mPFS, median progression-free survival in months; mOS, median overall survival in months; ESMO-MCBS, ESMO-Magnitude Clinical Benefit Scale; NA, not applicable. * Prospective studies without available results. ** Patients without mutations in liquid biopsy. (+++) Amplification 3 crosses.